It's Official - The Governor Doesn't Get It
Any hope that the Governor was adjusting his game plan in the wake of “Travelgate†is now officially over. It appears that weeks of pleading and prodding have had no discernable effect in light of his recent speech at the Chautauqua Institution on Tuesday.
Specifically, the Governor expressed his continued adherence to the belief that force is his only weapon against the Albany establishment. While acknowledging that passion had gotten the best of his administration in recent weeks, the Governor asserted that, “only when we are willing to confront power with power can we even begin to address the injustices of our time.†(NYT – Metro – B2 – 8/8/07)
This type of rhetoric and attitude was great when he was the so-called sheriff of Wall Street. However, times and circumstances have dramatically changed. He no longer has a badge and gun (figuratively). That is, he is no longer the Attorney General (a.k.a. – chief law enforcement officer) of New York.
Nevertheless, he does not seem to have gotten the memo – even in the wake of all the heat this fiasco has produced and supposedly will continue to produce. Indeed, if there are those who believe this hunger to “muscle†opponents is unique to the Governor and his inner circle – think again.
The New York Times reported on Saturday that the Governor’s assistant secretary of energy and telecommunications (Steven Mitnick) had resigned on Friday, apparently in the wake of an investigation into allegations that he threatened a Republican member of the Public Service Commission.
More troubling is the fact that Mr. Mitnick makes his home in Washington, D.C. Why is this troubling? Because it begins to make clear that the Governor is fostering an environment of “my way or the highway†that is being fed down to people with no recent connection to the Empire State or Albany. Moreover, this begins to cement the impression among insiders, activists and the public that the Governor is, well, a bully.
After 6+ years of “dumbya†and Dr. Strangelove (a.k.a. – Dr. Evil, er, Dr. No, er, “Dick†Cheney) the public at large is wary of such heavy-handed tactics. Indeed, if you listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates you will hear a decidedly cooperative tone in the way that they describe their potential administrations – vis-à -vis the modus operandi they will employ as Commander in Chief.
Again, another example of where New York Democrats have not gotten the memo – re: national trends. Of course, some will argue that New York – because of its dysfunctional legislature and policymaking structure – does not fit into the national model.
This is a valid argument – however, Eliot Spitzer ran on the platform of “everything changes on Day One.†Therefore, while it is perfectly valid to point out that New York Republicans and Joe Bruno practice a bare-knuckled brand of politics, it is not acceptable for the Governor to take office and immediately sink to their level.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Indeed, it has been suggested that the Governor would have more success – both from a PR and practical perspective – in changing the rules of the game itself. Moreover, this is the “bill of goods†that the Governor was peddling when he ran last year. And, it is what activists and many Democrats throughout New York bought into and were expecting on “Day One.â€
This is one of the primary reasons why the Governor is taking such heat. First, he is losing at the very game – a.k.a., “three men in a room†– he professed to disdain on the campaign trail and second, he has shown (in the past two weeks) a clear intention of not wanting to change that same dysfunctional game.
Many have argued that the Governor should take more aggressive steps to refocus the public’s attention on the bad actor in this tragedy – Joe Bruno – and away from the distraction that is “Travelgate.†Unfortunately that ship has sailed as a viable public relations and politic tactic– the Governor and his team are unfortunately guilty of “laches.â€
There is no question that New York desperately needs a strong leader with both the policies and ability to make a lasting difference. What the Governor seems to keep missing is the fact that there are greater goals at stake here - other than Eliot Spitzer the individual and some would say ambitious politician.
Indeed, Eliot Spitzer, the individual, would do himself and New York a greater service and create a legacy that would serve as a shining example for the nation to follow, if he put aside his ego, dealt with the current fiasco forthrightly – i.e., not the way he and his administration are currently proceeding with the “Bushian†practice of legal parsing about pubic and private e-mails – and forced Joe Bruno and the Senate Republicans to address the true bad actor in this situation, the dysfunctional system that is “three men in a room.â€
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Albany Reform | Eliot Spitzer | Joe Bruno | Three Men In A Room
» Jonathan S. Tuttle's blog | email this blog | printer friendly version | send to friend | 555 reads
Um Yes
Submitted by Jonathan S. Tuttle on 9 August 2007 - 6:31pm.
Where to begin - first, of all - it is quite insulting to think that I'm carrying that hack Joe Bruno's water.
If I really wanted to carry his water I'd send this as an editorial to that stooge Rupert Murdoch - and reference articles and op-eds from the NY Post in these entries.
Please don't dare me to really do what you accuse me of.
Okay - as your write, onward. Let's dissect this sophistry of yours, er, "comment."
First, the purpose of this post and the string that has been created on this blog (re: this topic) are consistent - that is, offering the Governor help and advice for success. Plain and simple.
Second, if I really wanted to take him down - I'd sit back and let him continue to screw this story up as he is doing right now. In addition, I'd write these things on Republican blogs and send them to right-wing media outlets.
Third, re-read the entry - it does not say Eliot = "dumbya". Rather, it very precisely points out that the Governor is utilizing the very same tactics that have failed so miserably for the current W.H. occupants.
Fourth, the reference to the resignation on Friday is meant as evidence supporting the greater message - re: the tactics being employed by our "rookie" Governor are heavy handed and ill-advised. No one - not even the Governor himself denies that his "passion" - i.e., tactics have been a little, shall we say zealous and not having their desired effect. Moreover, by saying that a member of the administration has nothing to do with the Governor is a little bit Bushian at its core. And, thankfully, only you are offering up that line of argument. I am glad to see that the Gov. is being accountable on this point and not acting consistently with this feeble type of argument that you propound.
Fifth, I'm giving the Governor crap because he's not perfect? Oh Puuuhhhhleeeeze. I'm not some wide-eyed, wet behind the ears, Don Quixote one issue "wunderkid. Rather, I'm only pointing out and holding the Governor accountable for what he ran on. He's the one who set the bar so high. I didn't get money from him or his campaign to come up with the slogan "Everything Changes on Day One." That was his brilliant idea. Holding him accountable to this standard is no one's fault, but his own. If he couldn't produce what he promised he should have come up with a different slogan. We're the voters, that's what we do. We're not paid shills.
Sixth, Rules Reform (i.e., changing that dysfunctional system called three men in a room) is not an end in and of itself. Certainly the Brennan Center and City Bar are not arguing that point. Again, nice try at that sohphistry. I would like nothing more than "real reform" - but as long as three men in a room continues to exist, I would love to see you and the Governor show me and all of us how real gov't. reform is going to take place. Do we have campaign finance reform? That would be, No. Do we have redistricting reform? No. Do we have authority reform? No. So, please, you and the Governor tell all of us how you plan to accomplish this in a system where one leg in that three-legged stool (i.e., three men in a room) can accomplish all these things, while simultaneously being wounded by an idiotic scandal.
Seventh, I want the Governor to succeed. All I'm asking, pleading, prodding, etc. is that he give this solution I'm offerin a try. It certainly can't do any more harm than what is already being done.
Eighth, thanks for making these weak arguments so I can refine mine.
Ninth, only by being objective as to Democrats can we have credibility when we go after Republicans. In case you and the rest of the blogosphere hasn't noticed - the Republican spin machine has already begun calling us hacks because we only tout and shill for Dems. If we really want to change things - and I believe we do - we can only do so by sticking to our principles and keeping our eye on the ball. Not being co-opted by our leaders who look to us to defend them when they screw up and threaten what we hope to accomplish.
That said, I will make sure to spend more time pointing out the positive things that have been accomplished - lest I become branded some Governor hater, which I am certainly not.
Hmmm, how can I say this...
Submitted by mole333 on 9 August 2007 - 10:08pm.
Look, I don't want to be harsh here, but I have to say that I have something of a problem with your recent posts. There is something a bit superficial in some of what you have been saying, and by superficial I kind of mean the same stuff that you can read in almost any mainstream paper (not counting Murdoch rags).
First off, I am not as much a Spitzer advocate as Michael. So I don't mind that you are criticizing him. I felt somewhat disturbed at some earlier hubris by the steamroller. But I think you are making a mistake that the MSM is also making: taking the Murdoch scandal theme and accepting it. What we have here is NOT s Spitzer scandal. What you have is Spitzer trying to pull Albany out of its long standing malaise and get it to actually do something. The Murdoch scandal theme is the attempt by Albany to resist, making what really wasn't a scandal into one. I would compare it to Whitewater except Whitewater was completely made up and almost falsified while this is more a partisan spin on what does seem like a miscalculation, but not a real scandal.
My point here is this: you are right that Spitzer deserves criticism for how this was handled, but not really for the inability of Albany to get anything done. I think that sits squarely on the legislature which is practically world famous for inability to do anything constructive. Sure, they can get together to give Bruce Ratner massive amounts of taxpayer money, but when was the last time they could do anything effective?
I will admit that my view of your comments on Spitzer are also colored by my view of your comment on the candidacy of Steve Harrison. Your immediate jump to the old and very unsuccessful line that we shouldn't bother because he doesn't have money (a line that I thought we got beyond in 2005 and 2006 with great success) seemed like a pretty mainstream and shallow view. Similarly, reading your Spitzer coverage made me think I'd been reading it elsewhere and there was not much new.
Honestly I think I am probably misjudging you and what you are saying. I suspect there is a great deal more than I am seeing. But...that is the way I think both Bouldin and I are seeing your stuff. And we do not necessarily agree on things. So consider what Bouldin is saying and consider that perhaps you are giving an impression you don't intend.
Again, no.
Submitted by Bouldin on 9 August 2007 - 10:34pm.
First of all, if you find it insulting to be described as carrying Bruno's water, then stop doing it. The Murdoch Post isn't a necessary requirement for that. Comparing Spitzer to Bush will do the job nicely, thank you very much.
If you're going to be on the blogs, just like all of us, you need to get used to vigorous disagreement. Take it from me, that's a requirement.
What bothers me here is this: first of all, you make these broad-brush statements based on very little evidence, and then, you buy into the Bruno framing. As Mole notes, you did the same thing with regard to the Harrison race - buying into the so-called conventional wisdom and ragging on the guy before he ever got started. That's not how we do things in the Progressive netroots. Sure, we criticize our people, and I've done so. What we don't do is tear them down, and that's unfortunately exactly what you're doing.
As to what we get called by the other side, please, give me an effing break. I don't give a flying fuck what I get called, and frankly, it's hard to see anything worse that I could be called that I haven't already been called.
As to Rules Reform, sure, that will happen, and needs to happen. It's not going to happen by ripping our governor and the best hope for change in this state a new one, or by comparing him with George Bush. That's ludicrous, and if you think anyone takes that accusation seriously, please disabuse yourself of the notion. It will happen once we retake the Senate. We need Eliot to be strong to do that. Ergo, your approach is destructive of your own goals.
Look
Submitted by Jonathan S. Tuttle on 10 August 2007 - 1:44am.
I don't mind you or Michael expressing your opinion - that's what free speech and discourse is all about.
And, as I've said to Michael - please read my blog on this subject as one stream and not as discrete posts.
You are right about the legislature - and, again, if you go to Jonathan S. Tuttle's blog and read it seriatim I think you will see - as I have written and said to Michael - that we are on the same page. It's the legislature and three men in a room that's the problem. Not to beat a dead horse again but go the City Bar's website and read the Rules Reform report - it spells out the point I am trying to get across here.
As for Steve Harrison - again - re-read the post. I didn't say don't work for Steve or heaven forbid don't give money to Steve. Rather, as activists we have to accept certain hard truths. And, one of them is - money is important - look at Steve in '06. He lost by 16,000 votes and was outspent 10-1. Also, look at Jimmy Dahroug's race - which for the record I gave my heart and soul to both times.
I checked out Steve Harrison's FEC filing for June 30 - he is squarely at $1,500. At that level he won't be getting DCCC money any time soon. Moreover, '08 is going to be a very tough year for money for non-presidential candidates - there's only so much to go around. Without money - or in lieu thereof a tremondous ground army in the district - there is no way to get the candidate's message out.
If you can't get the message out how do you propose we convince voters to vote for our candidate? That said, review the Barbaro race of '04 - again another race I gave heart and soul to. Frank had about $300K and still lost. Beginning to see a pattern here?
Steve is going to need at least $750K to compete with what will surely be another $1 million+ warchest for that empty suit Vito. So, taking as a premise that $750K poring into the Harrison campaign in October as too late - I ask the simple question as to how do we get to that level?
We are already in August of '07. Only 15 months away from November '08. That means to get to $750K Steve needs to raise approximately $50K a month - every month between now and then.
All I'm saying and asking is how do we get there? Again, like with Eliot - I'm not on the payroll, so it is not my responsibility to come up with the plan and implement it for the candidate. So, how does a guy who only got $138K in a 2 year cycle plan on reversing that into a $50K a month money machine? This election stuff is a two=way street.
If we do not ask hard questions we are doomed to simply repeat mistakes and not improve. Hey, I'll admit - hard questions aren't fun. But if they are asked with the intent to help or make me better - hey, I can handle it.
Just as you say I am not communicating my point clearly to you and Michael - and from what I hear the Gov. and his staff aren't happy with my message. Hey, I'll see what I can do. But in the meantime - consider me George Ball advising LBJ during Vietnam. He was the voice of reason and non-group think as he warned the president about the folly he ultimately made.
If all the Governor and all politicians want is yes men and women around them - then I begin to get very afraid.
Please, again, re-read everything I have written on this subject. I think you will see - when put into the macro (long-term) light that I am coming from this as a person who supports both the Governor and Steve Harrison - it doesn't mean I have to sit quietly and let them make mistakes because I don't want them to be angry with me.
I implore the Governor and his staff and Steve and you and Michael to contact me - I think I have a solution to the problem and am really a team player. We are really heading to the same goals - like all New Yorkers, I just think I have a better way to get there - and, even you have admitted that with respect to the Governor - he is clearly not headed down such a great road to achieving those goals.
This Spizer Thing
Submitted by William Pond (not verified) on 10 August 2007 - 10:30am.
I grew up in New York City, living there for more then twenty years. I used to breathe the smoke filed rooms of our local West Side Democratic Clubs, which in reality smelled more like an O.T.B. then anything else. Actually you get a bet down in both those places but that is for another time. I also grew up to be a national political consultant working on more then 100 Federal campaigns. I have been following the Eliot Spitzer mess from a distance away along with the debtate on this blog and here are my thoughts.
I still have high hopes for Eliot but so far he seems so be so out of his league as the State legislative leaders (hacks)have boxed him in and boxed his ears as well. This along with getting my old friend Andrew on board, this should be no surprise to anyone that knows a hack when they see one, and I saw one at HUD a decade or so ago.
I have read the this blog in regards to rules reform and it sounds to me like an excellent idea but there may be a bit more to it then that. Eliot's strategy has kept the story around way too long and as the Colonel of Clinton Wars James Carvelle used to say to me, "Hit him back hard and harder and then go get a drink because this will soon be over soon." John Kerry should have learned from this as Eliot Spitzer needs to if his going to play in that sandbox. Now, my strategy only works for so long, as there is much to accomplish, and then the rules reform and others measures can move forward to stop the years of national ridicule, which is the New York State Government. If Eliot does not do this he may turn out to be the next Malcolm Wilson and then it is goodbye and goodluck to manage his fortune.
Um, no.
First of all, let me just note that the entire "let's rag on Eliot" theme does nothing but help republicans. As I've said many times, republicans are the problem, not the solution.
Onward.
The comparison between Spitzer and Bush is ludicrous.
More.
The fact that someone resigned from the administration because of what you describe is bad. It is not, however, an indictment of the entire administration. Again, this is carrying water for the republicans. It also makes no sense to carp about a speech given on Tuesday in the context of a prior resignation on Friday.
There is a movement afoot to attack Eliot because he's not perfect enough for some people. Oh no, my pet issue hasn't yet been resolved to my complete satisfaction - bad Eliot! Bad!
I'm not happy with some of the tactics the administration has used, or more to the point, individual members thereof. The steamroller thing is way counter-productive. But Eliot Spitzer is the man whom New Yorkers elected with a massive landslide to fix this state, and if some people don't like that, they very certainly don't need the assistance and aid of people, like this diarist, who need to be invested in Eliot's success.
Sorry, I don't find this diary very helpful.